DanTown8587 wrote:GimmeDat wrote:DanTown8587 wrote:
I never understood this argument about non top tier players being compared to each other and not noticing how they fit with a roster. I really can't think of a 1-2-3 that fits any worse than Dunn - Lavine - Porter. I mean I already hate the fit of Lavine/Dunn and adding Porter to that at the three is like the trifecta of a terrible group.
If the Bulls have a pick where the choice is Porter or Bridges, I'm going Bridges.
I like Lavine in a vacuum, assuming his %'s increase back up to his career numbers or higher. I like Porter in a vacuum too. But in many ways, Porter feels like the forward version of Lavine, and I'm not sure having 2 of those guys is a gateway to success.
I don't see Porter as a 3 so I don't look at it like Dunn/Lavine/Porter like that, but I'm not sure what's worse, because if you see him as a 4 then you have him behind Markkanen (probably end up playing him a fair bit at 3 anyway just to get him minutes, though then there's the added concern of thinking you're playing him out of position).
He's a bad fit, there's no two ways about that. The question is whether the existing pieces are worthy enough to build around instead of just taking BPA. I think that is very questionable.
"BPA" is a myth that needs to die a slow death for how people evaluate
draft picks. What is "best", the guy who impacts the team most or the guy who is the most talented? The former OBVIOUSLY matters how the player fits within the scheme, roster, time frame of the roster where as the most talented would say that Zach Lavine is probably better than Otto Porter.
Also, if you think Porter's future career in the
NBA is at the four than I think you're going to be in a tough surprise considering his size and how he plays.
It's important how a players influences the impact of the team, but you can't assume that all the pieces are going to be as they are right now. Who knows in 5 years whether Dunn is our PG, whether Lavine is our starting SG or our 6th man, how much 4 and how much 5 Markkanen is playing, what other pieces we have, etc.
If Porter is a better talent and turns in to a better player in a vacuum to Mikal, then he's probably a better player than both Lavine and Dunn as well, and suddenly those are the guys that look out of place as a fit, not Porter.
Porter's 6'10, struggles laterally on defense as it is let alone against SF's, is quite upright with a high and mediocre dribble at this stage, and the modern PF position is much more perimeter oriented than it used to be. He might play some SF, sure, but his long term position seems to be PF in my mind. Not dis-similar to Jabari.
Now I'm with Red, I'm not MPJ>Mikal necessarily either. I do think MPJ has a higher ceiling in theory. However, I'm in love with Mikal's impact, I think he's got a strong ceiling in his own right, and he's obviously a great fit with our current pieces. But if I'm drafting him, it's because I think he's going to be a better player, not because MPJ is a lesser fit with our current pieces. I'm arguing the logic/philosophy, not the decision.
